Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-02-16
DIVISION DISCUSSION.
Al.Confab In the Territorial Council
over Matthew'S Division Election

ALCOnfab In the Territorial Council
over Matthew'S Division Election
Bill.
Bismarck Feb. 12-To-day, for the
first time this session, the question OF
division has been made the bone of con-
t~entiop, and the debate over it was both
lively and prolonged. It was called out
by the third reading Of Matthew'S bill
providing for the submission to a vote
of the people at a special election, to be
held in June, of the question of admis-
sion and division. Hughes opened the
debate with the proposition that if the
legislature WAS going into the settlement
of mooted sui lects it should not stop at
q single proposition but group fhe whole
list of leading conundrnms. He said:
There is the Andoyer doctrine, for
instance. He had heard aud read that
a college in Dakota and o great church
| were disturbed by differences about this
doctrine, snd to help them to a solution,
| Why not submit the question to the
decision of the people at the polls?
He moved to amend by substituting
"Andoyer' for .'divison" question. Mo
Comber seconded the motion. Gain
said:
II the doubt as to the future condition
OF the gentleman from Bnrieigh could
be settled in that way, the people OF
Dakota would be glad to express their
opinion on the doctrine OF future re-
wards and punishments.
Tue amendment was rejected. Hughes
said:
Among those who favored division
there was . difference OF opinion rs to
where the line should be drawn. To
give all shades of sentiment an oppor-
tanity or expressions ne wished to amend
so that at the anne election ballots
should be taken for and against division
on the Missouri river, on Apple creek,
and on general principles.
A division was called for on these
amendments, and they were rejected, s
TO 10. Mr.. Grigsby thought the matter
was too serious to the taxpayers to be
laughed over. 1t this bill passes 1t will
cost the taxpayers from $4,000 to $780,
600. He was a divisionist, he said aud
he believed the people OF the whole ter
ritory shoud have the right to vote on
division. He WAS willing to vote and
take ths stump for division on the 7th
standard, ii it would do any good, but a
popular vote at the time proposed would,
in his opinion, do no good. 1t was in
his opinion that not one-hundreth OF
the people would go to the polls to vote
on that proposition alone, and then 1t
would be said they did not care any
thing about it.
Mr.. Gain said:
TIE dfvislonists did not ask the passage
OF this bill because there was the least
doubt of the popular will. but because,
although every political assembly OF
importance in the TERRITORY has ex-
pressed itself in favor OF division, the
opponents OF division at Washington
say that the people have never ex-
pressed themselves on the question.
Let us settle this question once for all.
He claimed that the total cost OF elec-
tion would not exceed $4,000, prob
ably would not reach $50. 1000. and he
was sure the friends at the bill would
agree to have the submission in Novem-
Der, when the expenses would be less
than in June. The people, he said,
would welcome the enactment of this
bill as 9 means Of settling the question
Of what the people really wished. He
said there was a wrong impression IN
north Dakota as to the sentiment enter
tanned by the south toward the norsh.